In criminal law, the doctrine of common purpose, common design or joint enterprise refers to the situation where two or more people embark on a project with a common purpose that results in the commission of a crime. English law is the legal system of England and Wales, and is the basis of Common law legal systems used in most Commonwealth countriesand the Common law refers to law and the corresponding legal system developed through decisions of courts and similar tribunals rather than through legislative statutes or executive A summary offense, also known as a petty crime, is a criminal act in some Common law jurisdictions that can be proceeded with summarily without the right In many Common law Jurisdictions (eg the United Kingdom, Republic of Ireland, Canada, United States, India, A hybrid offence, dual offence, Crown option offence, dual procedure offence, or wobbler are the special class offences in the Common law Regulatory offences or quasi-criminal offences are a class of crime in which the standard for proving Culpability has been lowered so a Mens rea A lesser included offense, in Criminal law, is a crime for which all of the elements necessary to impose Liability are also elements found in a more serious crime Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which when proved Causation is the "causal relationship between conduct and result In Criminal law, mens rea the Latin term for "guilty mind" is usually one of the necessary elements of a Crime. In the Criminal law, intention is one of the three general classes of Mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional as opposed to In English Criminal law, intention is one of the types of Mens rea ( Latin for "guilty mind" that when accompanied by an In the Criminal law, recklessness (also called unchariness) is one of the four possible classes of mental state constituting Mens rea (the In the Criminal law, criminal negligence is one of the three general classes of Mens rea ( Latin for "guilty mind" element required In the Criminal law, corporate liability determines the extent to which a Corporation as a fictitious person can be liable for the acts and omissions The legal principle of vicarious liability applies to hold one person liable for the actions of another when engaged in some form of joint or collective activity In Criminal law, strict liability is liability for which Mens rea ( Latin for "guilty mind" does not have to be proven in relation In the Criminal law, an omission, or failure to act will constitute an Actus reus ( Latin for "guilty act" and give rise to liability In Western Jurisprudence, concurrence, (or contemporaneity or simultaneity) is the apparent need to prove the simultaneous occurrence Ignorantia juris non excusat or Ignorantia legis neminem excusat ( Latin for " Ignorance of the Law does not excuse" In English Criminal law, incitement is an anticipatory Common law offence and is the act of persuading encouraging instigating pressuring or threatening In the Criminal law, a conspiracy is an agreement between Natural persons to break the law at some time in the future and in some cases with at least one overt act An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a Crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal Attempt crimes are crimes where the defendant's actions have the form of the actual enaction of the crime itself the actions must go beyond mere preparation In the Criminal law, consent may be an Excuse and prevent the defendant from incurring Liability for what was done For duress in US law see Duress Duress in English criminal law is a complete common law defence operating in favour of those who commit For the discussion on general principles and policy see Necessity In English law, the defence of necessity recognises that there may In English Criminal law, the defence of self-defence provides for the right of people to act in a manner that would be otherwise unlawful in order to preserve the For a description of the general principles see Provocation (legal. For the law in other Criminal jurisdictions see Diminished responsibility. The M'Naghten Rules (pronounced and sometimes spelled McNaughton) were the first serious attempt to Codify and rationalise the attitude of the criminal law towards In Criminal law, a common assault is a Crime when the Victim apprehends immediate use of unlawful violence by the Defendant or the Defendant Battery is a term used by the Common law jurisdictions which involves an Injury or other Contact upon the Person of another in a manner likely Assault Occasioning Actual Bodily Harm (often abbreviated to Assault O Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (often abbreviated to GBH) is a phrase used in English Criminal law which was introduced in sections 18 and 20 The Offences Against the Person Act 1861 (24 & 25 Vict c100 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. In English law, murder is considered the most serious form of Homicide, in which one person kills another either intending to cause death or intending to For a discussion of the law in other countries see Manslaughter In the English law of Homicide, manslaughter is a less serious Corporate manslaughter is a Criminal offence in English law, being an act of Homicide committed by a company. Harassment refers to a wide spectrum of offensive behaviour The term commonly refers to behaviour intended to disturb or upset and when the term is used in a legal sense it refers In English law causing criminal damage was originally a Common law offence. In English law causing criminal damage was originally a Common law offence. The Public Order Act 1986 creates offences commonly used by United Kingdom police to deal with public disorder and Violence. For the law of Tort, see Nuisance In the English Criminal law, public nuisance is a class of Common law offence The Theft Act 1968 (1968 c60 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, governing most of the general property offences in English law. In Criminal law, theft (also known as stealing or filching) is the illegal taking of another person's Property without that person's freely-given Dishonesty is a word which in common usage may be defined as the act or to act without honesty a lack of probity to cheat lying or being deliberately deceptive lacking in Robbery is the Crime of seizing Property through Violence or Intimidation. A TWOC can also be a medical procedure - a trial without Catheter TWOC is an Acronym standing for Taking Without Owner's Consent. In English law, the main deception offences are defined in the Theft Act 1968 (TA68 the Theft Act 1978 and the Theft (Amendment Act 1996 Blackmail is the crime of threatening to reveal substantially true information about a person to the public a family member or associates unless a demand made upon the In English Criminal law, handling takes place after the Theft is completed and is committed by a fence or other person who helps the thief to realise The Theft Act 1978 supplemented the earlier Deception offences in English law contained in sections 15 and 16 of the Theft Act 1968 by reforming some aspects of those Forgery is the process of making adapting or imitating objects statistics or documents (see False document) with the intent to deceive. The Fraud Act 2006 (2006 c35 is an Act of Parliament in the United Kingdom, affecting England and Wales and Northern Ireland. Computer crime, Cybercrime, e-crime, hi-tech crime or electronic crime generally refers to criminal activity where a Computer Rape, also referred to as Sexual assault, is an Assault by a person involving Sexual intercourse with or Sexual penetration of another person In Criminal law, kidnapping is the taking away or Asportation of a person against the person's will usually to hold the person in False imprisonment Bribery, a form of pecuniary corruption is an act usually implying money or gift given that alters the behaviour of the recipient in ways not consistent with the duties of that person Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the act of lying or making verifiably false statements on a material matter under Oath or Affirmation in a The crime of obstruction of justice includes crimes committed by Judges Prosecutors attorneys general, and elected officials in general Criminal procedure refers to the legal process for adjudicating claims that someone has violated Criminal law. A contract is an exchange of promises between two or more parties to do or refrain from doing an act which is enforceable in a court of law Tort law is the name given to a body of law that creates and provides remedies for civil wrongs that do not arise out of Contractual duties Property law is the area of Law that governs the various forms of Ownership in Real property (land as distinct from personal or movable possessions In Common law, a will or testament is a document by which a person (the Testator) regulates the rights of others over his or her Property The law of trusts and estates is generally considered the body of Law which governs the management of personal affairs and the Disposition of Property of The Law of evidence governs the use of Testimony (eg oral or written statements such as an Affidavit) and exhibits (e The term criminal law, sometimes called penal law, refers to any of various bodies of rules in different Jurisdictions whose common characteristic is the potential In this situation the participants are jointly liable for all that results from the acts and omissions occurring within the scope of their agreement. In the Criminal law, an omission, or failure to act will constitute an Actus reus ( Latin for "guilty act" and give rise to liability For example, the High Court of Australia in McAuliffe v The Queen 69 ALJR 621, states at 624 that ". . . each of the parties to an arrangement or understanding is guilty of any crime falling within the scope of the common purpose which is committed in carrying out that purpose" and concluded at page 627:
- . . . it is sufficient to found a conviction for murder for a secondary party to have realised that in the course of the joint enterprise the primary party might kill with intent to do so or with intent to cause grievous bodily harm. Murder is the unlawful killing of another human person with Malice aforethought, as defined in Common Law countries Inflicting Grievous Bodily Harm (often abbreviated to GBH) is a phrase used in English Criminal law which was introduced in sections 18 and 20
Contents |
Explanation
In English law, the doctrine derives from R v Swindall v Osborne (1846) 2 Car. English law is the legal system of England and Wales, and is the basis of Common law legal systems used in most Commonwealth countriesand the & K. 230 where two cart drivers engaged in a race. One of them ran down and killed a pedestrian. It was not known which one had driven the fatal cart, but since both were equally encouraging the other in the race, it was irrelevant which of them had actually struck the man, and they were held jointly liable. Thus, the parties must share a common purpose and make it clear to each other by their actions that they are acting on their common intention so that each member of the group assumes responsibility for the actions of other members in that group. When this happens, all that flows from the execution of the plan will make them all liable. This is a question of causation in that oblique intention will be imputed for intermediate consequences that are a necessary precondition to achieving the ultimate purpose, and liability will follow where there are accidental and unforeseen departures from the plan so long as there is no novus actus interveniens to break the chain. Causation is the "causal relationship between conduct and result In the Criminal law, intention is one of the three general classes of Mens rea necessary to constitute a conventional as opposed to The principle of imputation or attribution reflects the general public policy underpinning the operation of the Law which is that Ignorantia juris In cases where there is violence beyond the level anticipated, the prosecution must prove:
- (a) an act done by D which in fact assisted the later commission of the offence,
- (b) that D did the act deliberately realising that it was capable of assisting the offence,
- (c) that D at the time of doing the act contemplated the commission of the offence by A i. e. he foresaw it as a �real or substantial risk� or �real possibility,� and
- (d) that D when doing the act intended to assist A in what he was doing.
If there is doubt as to whether all the participants are contributing equally, those defendants whose contribution is less may be charged as accessories rather than as joint principals. An accessory is a person who assists in the commission of a Crime, but who does not actually participate in the commission of the crime as a joint principal
Deliberate departure
Where one of the participants deliberately departs from the common purpose by doing something that was not authorised or agreed upon, he or she alone will be liable for the resulting consequences. In the situation exemplified in Davies v DPP (1954) AC 378 a group comes together for a fight or to commit a crime and either they know or do not know that one of their team has a weapon. If they know that there is a weapon, it is foreseeable that it might be used and the fact that the other participants do not instruct the one carrying to leave it behind, means that its use must be within the scope of their intention. But if they do not know of the weapon, this is a deliberate departure from the common purpose and this breaks the enterprise.
When the outcome is death
The simplest form of joint enterprise to murder, is when two or more plan to cause death and do so. In English law, murder is considered the most serious form of Homicide, in which one person kills another either intending to cause death or intending to If all the parties participated in carrying out the plan, all are liable regardless who actually inflicted the fatal injury. But when there is no plan to murder and one party kills while carrying out a plan to do something else, e. g. a planned robbery in which the participants hope to be able to get what they want without killing anyone, but one of them does in fact kill, the other participants may still be guilty of murder or manslaughter provided that they had the necessary mens rea. Robbery is the Crime of seizing Property through Violence or Intimidation. For a discussion of the law in other countries see Manslaughter In the English law of Homicide, manslaughter is a less serious In R v Lovesey and Peterson (1969) 53 Cr. App. R. 461 a gang was executing a plan to overpower a jeweller and steal his more valuable stock. After the robbery, the jeweller was found dead. All were properly convicted because the death was the outcome of the agreed use of violence. That this accidentally caused the jewller's death did not prevent liability. The usual case will involve plans to commit criminal damage, burglary, rape or some other crime and there will be no compelling inference that there must also have been a plan to kill. In English law causing criminal damage was originally a Common law offence. Rape, also referred to as Sexual assault, is an Assault by a person involving Sexual intercourse with or Sexual penetration of another person For the participants to be convicted of murder, the question becomes one of foresight that one of them might kill. In R v Powell (Anthony) and English (1999) 1 AC 1 the Lords said that the other participants must have realised that, in the course of the joint enterprise, the primary party might kill with intent to do so or with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, i. e. with the intent necessary for murder. Thus the Powell and English doctrine extends joint enterprise liability from the paradigm case of a plan to murder to the case of a plan to commit another offence in the course of which the possibility of a murder is foreseen (see R v Bryce (2004) [1]). In Attorney-General's Reference (No. 3 of 2004) (2005) EWCA Crim 1882 the defendant, H, was charged with manslaughter. H had sent K and C to terrify R, knowing both that K and C would have a loaded firearm with them, and that this firearm might be fired near R to increase his fear. The Court of Appeal held that H's liability depended on the scope of the joint enterprise. On the assumed facts, there was no evidence that H foresaw that the gun would be fired and R might be injured. Rather, K's intentional act of firing the gun so as to kill or cause R grievous bodily harm was fundamentally different from the acts contemplated by H. The outcome would have been different if there had been a common design to cause some harm to R. In such a case, H would be liable for manslaughter because, albeit to frighten, he had authorised the firing of the gun, i. e. he would have realised that K might intentionally cause some harm when he fired the gun. But on the assumed facts, H did not foresee the possibility of any harm to R let alone intentional harm so was properly acquitted.
Repentance
Where one person has been an active member of the common purpose, he or she may escape liability by withdrawal before the other(s) go on to commit the crime. But mere repentance without any action clearly leaves the party liable. To be effective, the withdrawal must actively seek to prevent what has been done from being relied upon by the others. In R v Becerra (1975) 62 Crim. App. R. 212 it was held that any communication of withdrawal by the secondary party to the perpetrator must be such as to serve "unequivocal notice" upon the other party to the common purpose that, if he proceeds upon it, he does so without the further aid and assistance of the withdrawing party. According to Smith and Hogan, Criminal Law:
- If an accomplice only advised or encouraged the principal to commit the crime, he must at least communicate his withdrawal to the other parties.
- Where an accomplice has supplied the principal with the means of committing the crime, the accomplice must arguably neutralise, or at least take all reasonable steps to neutralise, the aid he has given.
- In more serious cases, it may be that the only effective withdrawal is either physical intervention or calling in the police.
In R v Rook (1997) Cr. App. R. 327 the court held that, as in the case of joint enterprise where both parties are present at the scene of the crime, it is not necessary for the prosecution to show that a secondary party who lends assistance or encouragement before the commission of the crime intended the victim to be killed, or to suffer serious injury, provided it was proved that he foresaw the event as a real or substantial risk and nonetheless lent his assistance. Rook was convicted as one of a gang of three men who met and agreed the details of a contract killing to kill the wife of a fourth man on the next day. Rook did not turn up next day and the killing was done by his two fellows. His defence was that he never intended the victim to be killed and believed that, if he failed to appear, the others would not go through with the plan. Lloyd LJ. described the evidence against him in this way:
- So the position, on his own evidence, was that he took a leading part in the planning of the murder. He foresaw that the murder would, or at least might, take place. For a time he stalled the others. But he did nothing to stop them, and apart from his absence on the Thursday, he did nothing to indicate to them that he had changed his mind.
This did not amount to an unequivocal communication of his withdrawal from the scheme contemplated at the time he gave his assistance.
See also
References
- Allen, Michael. The Casement Three is the name of the three people from Belfast, Northern Ireland, Pat Kane Mickey Timmons and Seán Ó Cealleagh (aka Sean O'Cealleagh or John O’Kelly Textbook on Criminal Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford. (2005) ISBN 0-19-927918-7.
- Ormerod, David. Smith and Hogan Criminal Law, LexisNexis, London. (2005) ISBN 0-406-97730-5.
Dapyx Software network: MP3 Explorer | Ebook Manager | Zenithic